OP0252 ARTHRITIS AND ENTHESITIS IN THE HIP AND PELVIS REGION IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS – VALIDATION OF TWO WHOLE-BODY MRI METHODS

Background: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) allows assessment of the overall inflammation in arthritis patients, including joint and entheses. To enhance use WB-MRI clinical trials, OMERACT Arthritis Working Group developed score for Inflammation Peripheral joints Entheses inflammatory (MRI-WIPE) [1]. This has been validated entire body, hip/pelvis region, but not each individual region. More detailed scoring systems exist heels, hands feet although hip is a key cause functional impairment spondyloarthritis (SpA), no system published SpA. The Hip Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System (HIMRISS) was osteoarthritis showing good reliability. Objectives: validate reliability, correlation responsiveness two scores region Methods: assessed on coronal WB-MRIs 4 iterative multi-reader exercises using MRI-WIPE HIMRISS (Figure 1). In final exercises, images (axial/peripheral SpA psoriatic arthritis) were obtained before after TNF-inhibitor. Results: reliability mostly best calibrated readers. Median single-measure intraclass coefficients 0.58-0.65 (WIPE osteitis), 0.10-0.88 (HIMRISS 0.38-0.72/0.52-0.60 synovitis/effusion) 0.68-0.89/0.78-0.85 (Table methods correlated significantly status osteitis (0.72, p=0.019) synovitis/effusion (0.83, p=0.003) change (0.73, p=0.017) exercise Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant between timepoints WIPE SRM large (1.23), while lower HIMRISS. Table 1. interreader 3-4 Osteitis Synovitis/effusion Variables No. patients (cases ) Type Mean ICC Exercise 3 9 readers 11 Status 2.3 (0-10) 0.69 (0.23-0.93) 1.4 (0-4) 0.58 (-0.06-0.96) 8.2 (1-60) 0.84 (0.56-0.99) 12.8 (3-25) 0.52 (0.00-.91) Change -0.2 (-1-1) NA (-3-1) 0.50 (0.10-0.87) -0.35 -1.8 (-17-10) (-0.05-0.89) 1.8 0.63 (0.46-0.93) 1.7 (0-5) 0.60 (0.34-0.80) 6.6 (0-65) 0.88 (0.77-0.94) (2-28) 0.89 (0.87-0.91) -0.12 (-3-2) (0.48-0.83) -0.7 (-7-0) -1.6 (-21-8) 0.78 (0.70-0.87) 10 (1-10) 1.2 0.21 (-0.39-0.91) 1.1 (0-2) 0.19 (-0.31-0.69) (0-6) 0.07 (-0.17-0.83) 16.4 (9-23) 0.31 (0.00-0.89) (11-20) 1.6 0.51 (-0.08-0.99) 1 (0-3) 0.40 (-0.17-0.88) 3.5 (1-8) 0,08 (-0.21-0.95) 11.2 (5-24) 0.49 (0.00-0.94) 11-20) -0.4 (-2-0) -0.39 0.22 (-0.68-0.83) -2.2 (-7-2) -5.2 (-18-0) 0.57 (0.02-0.92) 20 (1-20) 0.41 (-0.35-0.92) 1.0 0.27 (-0.07-0.75) 2.7 (0-9) 0.09 (-0.17-0.85) 13.8 (5-25) 0.45 (0.01-0.90) 0.8 0.29 (0.01-0.78) 1.3 -0.02 (-0.29-0.12) 0.4 -0.04 (-0.04-0.04) 15.8 (5-26) 0.73 (0.59-0.89) 0.65 (0.52-0.76) 0.72 (0.62-0.81) 0.06 (-0.17-0.35) 9.2 (2-26) 0.68 (0.53-0.88) -0.6 -0.5 (0.49-0.55) (-2-1) -2.8 (-19-6) 0.85 (0.82-0.88) (0.43-0.69) 0.38 (0.31-0.44) 0.10 (-0.09-0.33) 12.5 (0.69-0.77) Sum ICCs are mean (range). 2-way mixed, single measure, by absolute agreement. Conclusion: may be useful tools modular evaluation trials References: [1]Krabbe S et al. J Rheum. 2019;46(9):1215-21 [2]Jaremko JL 2019;46(9)1239-42 Acknowledgements: We thank CARE Limited (carearthritis.com) help with setting up web-based interface, meetings. acknowledge contribution SIG (Special Interest Group) participants at virtual meeting October 29, 2020. HMO, GDM PGC supported part National Institute Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Centre, United Kingdom. views expressed those authors necessarily NHS, NIHR or Department Health. Disclosure Interests: Marie Wetterslev: None declared, Robert G Lambert Consultant of: Parexel Pfizer, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Grant/research support from: Iris Eshed: Susanne Juhl Pedersen MSD, Novartis AbbVie Paul Bird Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Maria Stoenoiu: Simon Krabbe: Ashish Jacob Mathew: Violaine Foltz: Frederique Gandjbakhch: Joel Paschke: Gabriele De Marco: Helena Marzo-Ortega Takeda Janssen Philippe Carron Gilead MSD Anna Enevold Fløistrup Poulsen: L Jaremko: Philip Conaghan Flexion Therapeutics, Regeneron, Stryker, Mikkel Østergaard Boehringer-Ingelheim, Hospira, Merck, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi UCB